Thursday, September 30, 2010

Michael Ignatieff wants to be #1 and he is 'working' hard to gain the title.

No, I am not talking about the PM's job, although I am sure he wants that as well, but rather Mr. Ignatieff seems to be trying hard to be #1 on the list of MP's who are absent from work and miss votes in Parliament.

Ignatieff is currently sitting in second place behind Bloc MP Jean-Yves Roy ( who is expected to retire in October 2010). With Roy's retirement upcoming and judging by his record since Parliament returned just last week, Mr.Ignatieff has already missed 4 out of the 6 recorded votes, Micheal Ignatieff is a sure bet to reach the number one spot very soon.

Good luck on reaching your goal Mr. Ignatieff, we will be watching your progress closely as you set out to become the #1 dead beat in the House of Commons all while at the same time telling us how hard you and your party are working for Canadians.

Here are some details on a couple of the votes that Ignatieff has been absent for since the House resumed sitting:

C 308 to amend the Employment Insurance Act. (Yes, it is true. Ignatieff was absent for a vote on changing EI, the very thing that only 1 year ago he had threatened to force an election over!)

C 440 Gerard Kennedy's latest attempt to allow war resisters, who knowingly volunteered to enter the US military, to stay in Canada. (Way to support your own MP's Iggy, but to be fair I don't think Iffy likes Kennedy very much. Hey, it is not like Ignatieff is not being consistent on the subject. Wait a minute...)

The CBC Rosemary Barton finally responds to comments she made on live TV during the long gun registry vote. See blog post on the quote here and listen to the actual quote for yourself.

The original quote: " ..it may be fair to point out that the Conservatives are whipped on their position here, so even of there was a Conservative MP from Quebec that didn't feel comfortable taking this position they would be forced to vote ah with their party in the same way the Liberals were."

Here is what she had to say today on Twitter. (my thoughts in parenthesis)

From BC Blue: @RosieBarton Rosie, is it true you called the Con caucus "whipped" on the Registry vote?

RB Reply: @bcbluecon I said they were voting along party lines. Is that wrong? (that is not what she said)

My reply: @RosieBarton Actually you said CPC "are whipped on their position here... forced to vote with their party in the same way the Liberals were.

RB: @Albertaardvark do you have proof that's wrong? (No proof for her statements, asks me to disprove her words instead)

My reply: @RosieBarton I know it is wrong but I didn't make the statement. BTW do u have any proof for your allegation?

RB: @Albertaardvark well, I guess we'll just disagree on what we know then. Cuz I'm not sharing either.

My reply: @RosieBarton So U will not offer proof of YOUR statement but it is up 2 me 2 disprove what u stated.Is that how accountability is done @CBC?

Wow. The logic she is using is mind blowing. No proof or defense of her own statement but rather she calls on me to disprove her words! I believe that this would be called fallacious reasoning and I can't seem to find it anywhere in the CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.

Try that same logic with this one Rosie:I say that the CBC has many Satan worshipers in its employ.* Prove me wrong!

The burden of proof lies with the person making the affirmative statement, and should not be placed on someone else to disprove that statement, which in the case of Satan worshipers at the CBC or the existence of unicorns would be impossible to do.

I thought I did a good job of showing why there was no need to whip the CPC to vote for what is a CORE policy of the party on this vote in my original post but let me add another quick point. Michael Ignatieff is out on record, multiple times, saying that he is whipping the Liberal vote, there is no record of PM Stephen Harper doing likewise. Does that sound like CPC MP's were "forced to vote ah with their party in the same way the Liberals were."

* exaggeration for effect. Or was it. Prove me wrong.

UPDATE: Rosie, who it appears can't take criticism or defend her own statements, has blocked me from following her on Twitter. Stay classy Rosie.

Latest Update 25 Sept: Rosie has now Protected ALL of her Tweets from being viewed. You now have to be one of the elite few selected by her to have the pleasure of seeing what she does while at work at the CBC on your dime.

Wednesday on CBC's Power and Politics during the big vote on Bill C 391 Rosemary Barton made the following claim:

" ..it may be fair to point out that the Conservatives are whipped on their position here, so even if there was a Conservative MP from Quebec that didn't feel comfortable taking this position they would be forced to vote ah with their party in the same way the Liberals were." (Clip at bottom of post)

News to me and I assume to the conservative caucus too because the fact of the matter was that they were NOT whipped. We all know that the Liberals were whipped ( the first time for a private members bill I believe) and although the NDP claim not to have been whipped their vote they somehow managed to get just the right number of NDP MPs to change their votes and kill C391 (Cue the church lady: How convenient), but the conservatives were NOT whipped; they didn't have to be.

Killing the long gun portion of the firearms registry has always been conservative policy right from the first policy convention, in fact this is clearly written into the party policy declaration. It is a bedrock position of the CPC and one which every MP ran on it during every election since the party unification in 2003. There was no need to whip the vote as every MP is well aware of where THEIR party stands and there was absolutely no need to threaten them to do what they all have said they were going to do; vote to scrap the long gun registry. Reminding MP's of the importance of a vote is not whipping, and in this case with all of the media coverage on C 391 I doubt the CPC whip even had to do that.

So no Rosemary, it was not fair nor was it accurate to point out to the CBC viewing audience that the conservatives were whipped on C 391.

FYI : I have asked Rosemary Barton via Twitter 2 separate times about her comments and so far I have, big surprise, not received any response what so ever. Update: Rosie responds, and unable defend her own words, blocks me!

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Just hours moments after the 153-151 vote on the fate of Bill C391 earlier tonight was completed, the Liberals were already playing politics with the result and sent out a fund-raising email. That didn't take long but who could be surprised after the Liberals, along with some friendly media, played this little bit of politics earlier this afternoon.

Here is some of the email:

This is your win.

When we asked, you spoke up for Canada’s public safety in your community and online. You donated so our Women’s Caucus could spread our message across Canada in the critical final days before the vote. And when Jack Layton refused to take responsibility for his NDP caucus, you phoned his office and told him to get the votes no matter what.

But this is just the start of this parliamentary session, and there will be much more to do in the weeks and months to come. So I’m asking for your help again today, to ensure that we can meet the next challenge as effectively as this one.

Today’s vote is a perfect example of how a strong, well-funded opposition can fight for your values in Ottawa and hold this divisive, confrontational Conservative government to account when it refuses to listen to you.

But today’s victory also comes with a dark cloud.

That dark cloud is the possibility that Stephen Harper approaches every issue the House faces this Fall with the same bitter and acrimonious tone we saw during the gun registry debate.

Canadians like you are calling loudly on politicians to work together more cooperatively. We’re listening to you, just as we did throughout the summer as the Liberal Express traveled over 56,000 kilometres to every province and territory...

The Liberal Party of Canada represents the only progressive, compassionate and responsible alternative to Stephen Harper and his politics of division. Your support today will make all the difference tomorrow.

Thank you,

David

---
David McGuinty
Liberal House Leader
Liberal Party of Canada

Literally moments after; how did David find the time?

More like this email was already to go before the vote even took place, but to be honest I would have liked to have read the other email they had ready to go; the one that was written in the event they had lost the vote. I doubt it would have been much different than this one, perhaps going more after the NDP and PM Harper may have been painted as even more evil, but I doubt they would have started it off by saying 'this is your loss'.

For the party that wants political games stopped, the Liberals did everything they could today to prove that claim false.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

But even though Rick is a national treasure who should be subsidized and definitely is not one of the elite, I believe that I will think for myself and take a pass on going batshit crazy over this soon to be over-hyped story.

I was going to write up a long post going into why this is not as big of a deal as some are trying to spin it but it is late so I will just bring up a couple of the more critical points.

First off this mans file (the access to information filing produced 14,000 pages of docs!) was never made public until he decided to show it to the CP. Parts of it were accessed by various bureaucrats at various times over the years, but as everyone now screaming about this did when they were screaming about the census, our bureaucrats are professionals who are sworn to uphold our privacy making this is a non issue. I highlighted the access to parts of his file earlier for good reason; I doubt that any 'VA 'crat with a computer could access Ministerial briefing notes on a whim and it is those notes, with the quote from his shrink, just a quote not the entire medical file, that seems to be the biggest issue here

Next up the Ministerial notes.

Would some one like to explain to me why a Minister of the Crown should not be allowed to see EVERYTHING that their department has regarding its payments/legal battles/history/contacts etc etc of the people the dept are dealing with?

Seriously, a Minister who didn't read his briefing notes, which btw were prepared for him by others, would not be doing their job as best as they could.

So you still think that a Minister of the Crown should not be able to see everything his dept has do you? Please read the following if you do.

Lets go back just a few months ago where once again the screamers who now feign outrage over this were talking about something else, the Afghan detainee docs.

To put that into context for you:

If opposition MPs are allowed to see secret military documents in a time of war, because Parliament is supreme yadayada, than surely a Minister of the Crown must be allowed to see all of the documents/info from within his own department.

Parliament is supreme said Iggy, Jack and Gilles, and if secret military docs are not considered taboo you can bet your last dollar that neither would medical, financial, or any other document that you can possibly think of be of limits.

Unless this fellows info was leaked to the public (which BTW our media seems to never have a problem doing itself 'confidential' or not) there was no privacy breach, there was no scandal and there certainly isn't justification to tell people to go batshit crazy over it.

It is going to be fun watching people twist themselves up over this today.

Quick update: People are already going nuts.

The so called medical information consists of a letter from a psychiatrist TO Veterans Affairs ( yes it was to veterans affairs and not from a confidential report) as well as references to Mr. B's chronic fatigue syndrome, tension headaches as well as other medical complaints, and the number of doctors appointments he has had. I take it that few of these people complaining have ever dealt with government (think WCB) before. If veterans affairs are paying for his treatment of course they will have this info with my guess much of it being supplied by Mr. B himself as he filed claims over the years.

Here is a shocker: if you go to a doctor in Canada your provincial health care insurance keeps a record of that visit! Imagine what your insurance company knows about your dental treatments! Quick call your lawyer!

A couple of quick points on so called patient confidentiality. It is in no way absolute.

In the headlines – or staying out of the headlines.Our unparalleled relationships with bureau chiefs, columnists, producers, editors, members of the National Parliamentary Press Gallery and an extensive network of media contacts across the country make Bluesky’s reach vast.We have been on both sides of the camera and understand what makes news.Our team takes our clients’ issues and shapes strong messages that put them in the news or help them stay out of it!

Interesting. I guess that Don Newman will be a valuable asset with his past and current relationship with the CBC. Good for him and his new employer Bluesky, but shouldn't this sort of thing raise concerns within the CBC?

Credibility is dependent not only on qualities such as accuracy and fairness in reporting and presentation, but also upon avoidance by both the organization and its journalists of associations or contacts which could reasonably give rise to perceptions of partiality. Any situation which could cause reasonable apprehension that a journalist or the organization is biased or under the influence of any pressure group, whether ideological, political, financial, social or cultural, must be avoided.

If this type of thing must be avoided could someone at the CBC explain why is Newman still allowed to write for the CBC at the same time as he working with a group that claims to be able to influence the media by taking "our clients’ issues and shapes strong messages that put them in the news or help them stay out of it!"

Bob Rae was noticeably absent from oral questions in Parliament yesterday and he wasn't alone; 18 other Liberal MPs were also too busy doing something else rather than showing up to do their jobs even though Michael Ignatieff's office ordered everyone to be there.

In total 19 out of 75 Liberal MPs, almost 25% of the entire Liberal caucus, were absent yesterday, which must really tick Ignatieff off considering all of the time he invested this summer telling Canadians just how hard he and his party were going to work for them when they returned to work this fall. Another leadership fail, but there is something else revealed here which could be much much worse for his Iffyness.

If he can't get his own caucus to bother to show up on the first day back to work this fall, even though he instructed them to be there, what is going to happen when it comes time for that same Liberal caucus to show up to the whipped vote on the long gun registry?

Remember that Ignatieff has at least 8 MPs in that caucus who had previously voted to represent their constituents wishes against the long gun registry and who now are being directed to change their vote under orders from Ignatieff. If 1 or 2 decide not to show up rather than go against the whip, the long gun registry just may die. Considering the amount of taunting and name calling that the LPC and their minions have been directing towards Jack Layton and the NDP these past few weeks on this issue, if it turns out that Ignatieff and his party are the ones that cause the demise of the LG registry, it would be absolutely devastating to his leadership; in fact I think it would all be over for him as leader of the LPC within a few short months.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Joel from PTBC takes a look at the last 2, err make that 3 EKOS polls here.

Take a read. Like most of what Joel puts up it is well worth the time to do so.

I wonder why the Sept 1-7 poll was never made public on the 9th as is typical with EKOS CBC polls, and why the info showed up in the 16th data?

Maybe the CBC was trying to save some cash and didn't want to cough up that week or maybe it was some other reason, but I doubt we will ever get the answer or find out if our publicly funded broadcaster ponied up for that week or not. My guess is that their deal with EKOS, spending our tax dollars, is one of those things that the CBC wants to keep secret from us.

Friday, September 17, 2010

The MSM finally catches with a story I broke almost 1 year ago about how PM Harper is in cahoots with the Montreal Canadiansfor what can be described only as nefarious purposes.

From the MSM Yesterday: “I believe that federal powers have taken over the Canadiens,” (PQ language critic Pierre Curzi) and “It helps federalism more than it does our interests,” (PQ Leader Pauline Marois) CBC, the Sun and the NP.

Sources close to the Liberal Party have revealed to me that they are planning a press conference later today condemning the fabled NHL team, the Montreal Canadians, for this logo.According to my source (Thanks Hedy) not only does the "C" look remarkably like the "C' on the current line up of Olympic apparel , the "H" in the middle obviously stands for "Harper".

Michael Ignatieff showed us yesterday just how skilled he is at keeping a straight face while simultaneously speaking out of both sides of his mouth to the media.

"John’s not off to a great start, but we still have to take the high road. I have a responsibility to be tough but civil." and “Canadians don’t like that kind of politics. That’s one of the reasons this guy’s in trouble,” Mr. Ignatieff says. “He thinks it’s all so clever to play these games. Canadians don’t think that’s clever, they think it’s stupid.”

Seriously, the leader of the Party that played political games with: (a small sampling from just this last year.)

wants us to believe that his is the party that is trying to make Parliament less toxic.

Sorry Mike but I am calling BS. A party, that to this day refuses to apologize for trumping up a made up story about a communion wafer at a funeral with which they used to try and make political hay out of, can't run around claiming to be the party of the high road and get away with it.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Is it not obvious to everyone that when you are camping in the Rocky Mountains of Banff National Park, which is natural bear habitat, that you may encounter bears? I think the answer is as obvious as the answer is to the age old question: Do bears S#*% in the woods?

Next time perhaps they should stay home and take a nice relaxing swim in the waters off Australia.

Via Email: A warning to Aussies (or anyone else) traveling in the Rockies.

Monday, September 13, 2010

John McCallum has been named the critic for transport in Ignatieff's shadowy cabinet.

Not sure if that was such a good choice. Here is what McCallum had to say about his own transport back into 2009 :

John McCallum speaking at the AGM of the Liberal riding association of Windsor-Tecumseh was asked what type of car he drives. His response: McCallum stammered for several seconds before responding: “I drive a North American-made car.” Asked to be more specific, he responded: “I drive a General Motors car.” Asked again to be more specific, he said it was “a Chevrolet.”Question asked, question answered. Or was it?Within a couple of hours of answering the simple question about what type of car he drives McCallum phoned The Star to retreat from those comments, offering this explanation in a voicemail: “I said the wrong thing without thinking. The fact of the matter is that I do not own a North American-made car.” He followed with an e-mail sent from his Blackberry that said: “To confirm message I left on your voicemail, to clarify, I do not own a North American made vehicle.” McCallum never divulged what kind of car he owns.

Hey it could be worse, he could have been named as defence critic.

This is what he said as the actual Minister of Defence:

Last week John McCallum, Canada's Minister of National Defence, stood on the beaches of Dieppe, France, to mark the 60th anniversary of one of the most disastrous battles in our military history. In doing so, he made modern political history by admitting that he had no idea what he was doing. He frankly conceded, that until the previous week, he had never heard of the battle of Dieppe.

Since then, our number one military man has been publicly pilloried by veterans, politicians and bemused historians. Mr. McCallum then decided to use an offensive manoeuvre and respond to critics in a letter to the editor of this paper. Wise tactic -- but he sustained huge losses when he mistakenly compared the Dieppe battle to "Vichy" (the Nazi capital of occupied France) rather than to "Vimy [Ridge]," the site of Canada's most famous battle in the First World War.

News Links

Getting it Done

BT Site of the week

Yes I do know that Ardvark is not the correct spelling, but it would take too long to explain.

Copyrighted material used by this not for profit site is done so under the 'fair dealing' provisions of the Canadian Copyright Act for the purposes of criticism, review and/or news reporting, with links to the original material provided whenever possible.